↓ Skip to main content

Selection and performance of village health teams (VHTs) in Uganda: lessons from the natural helper model of health promotion

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selection and performance of village health teams (VHTs) in Uganda: lessons from the natural helper model of health promotion
Published in
Human Resources for Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12960-015-0074-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanueil Benon Turinawe, Jude T. Rwemisisi, Laban K. Musinguzi, Marije de Groot, Denis Muhangi, Daniel H. de Vries, David K. Mafigiri, Robert Pool

Abstract

Community health worker (CHW) programmes have received much attention since the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata, with many initiatives established in developing countries. However, CHW programmes often suffer high attrition once the initial enthusiasm of volunteers wanes. In 2002, Uganda began implementing a national CHW programme called the village health teams (VHTs), but their performance has been poor in many communities. It is argued that poor community involvement in the selection of the CHWs affects their embeddedness in communities and success. The question of how selection can be implemented creatively to sustain CHW programmes has not been sufficiently explored. In this paper, our aim was to examine the process of the introduction of the VHT strategy in one rural community, including the selection of VHT members and how these processes may have influenced their work in relation to the ideals of the natural helper model of health promotion. As part of a broader research project, an ethnographic study was carried out in Luwero district. Data collection involved participant observation, 12 focus group discussions (FGDs), 14 in-depth interviews with community members and members of the VHTs and four key informant interviews. Interviews and FGD were recorded, transcribed and coded in NVivo. Emerging themes were further explored and developed using text query searches. Interpretations were confirmed by comparison with findings of other team members. The VHT selection process created distrust, damaging the programme's legitimacy. While the Luwero community initially had high expectations of the programme, local leaders selected VHTs in a way that sidelined the majority of the community's members. Community members questioned the credentials of those who were selected, not seeing the VHTs as those to whom they would go to for help and support. Resentment grew, and as a result, the ways in which the VHTs operated alienated them further from the community. Without the support of the community, the VHTs soon lost morale and stopped their work. As the natural helper model recommends, in order for CHW programmes to gain and maintain community support, it is necessary to utilize naturally existing informal helping networks by drawing on volunteers already trusted by the people being served. That way, the community will be more inclined to trust the advice of volunteers and offer them support in return, increasing the likelihood of the sustainability of their service in the community.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
Unknown 208 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 19%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 61 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Social Sciences 24 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 68 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#811
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,333
of 278,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#23
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.